Classifying heterogeneous presentations of PTSD via the default mode, central executive, and salience networks with machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intrinsic connectivity networks (ICNs), including the default mode network (DMN), the central executive network (CEN), and the salience network (SN) have been shown to be aberrant in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The purpose of the current study was to a) compare ICN functional connectivity between PTSD, dissociative subtype PTSD (PTSD+DS) and healthy individuals; and b) to examine the use of multivariate machine learning algorithms in classifying PTSD, PTSD+DS, and healthy individuals based on ICN functional activation. Our neuroimaging dataset consisted of resting-state fMRI scans from 186 participants [PTSD (n = 81); PTSD + DS (n = 49); and healthy controls (n = 56)]. We performed group-level independent component analyses to evaluate functional connectivity differences within each ICN. Multiclass Gaussian Process Classification algorithms within PRoNTo software were then used to predict the diagnosis of PTSD, PTSD+DS, and healthy individuals based on ICN functional activation. When comparing the functional connectivity of ICNs between PTSD, PTSD+DS and healthy controls, we found differential patterns of connectivity to brain regions involved in emotion regulation, in addition to limbic structures and areas involved in self-referential processing, interoception, bodily self-consciousness, and depersonalization/derealization. Machine learning algorithms were able to predict with high accuracy the classification of PTSD, PTSD+DS, and healthy individuals based on ICN functional activation. Our results suggest that alterations within intrinsic connectivity networks may underlie unique psychopathology and symptom presentation among PTSD subtypes. Furthermore, the current findings substantiate the use of machine learning algorithms for classifying subtypes of PTSD illness based on ICNs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".